Come join us for a slice of Americana with a helping of conservative politics on the side.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Friday, June 17, 2005

'Liberal progressive' should be replaced with 'regressive socialist' for their policies are more reflective of the latter. Liberalism is freedom, progressive means moving forward, neither of these represents todays Dems, Pelosi to Boxer to "turban" Durbin, all I hear is hate America socialism. That manure doesn't fly here! Yea, us "rednecks" are stupid, I know Dr. Dean won't get much milage with his latest retoric.

5 comments:

GG - ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I've e-mailed BOR repeatedly, requesting he PLEASE stop calling these folks "progressive". They may be progressive-in-THEORY, but they are, in fact, truth, and reality, regressive-in-PRACTICE. While I agree with calling some of them "socialists", far too many of them, due to their promotion of so many Communist goals and objectives, probably qualify for the "Communist" or "Leftist" label, instead. "Seditionists", "traitors", and "opportunistic, prevaricating, and slanderous poseurs" also comes to mind.

Right now, the democrats have a problem. The Bush machine has successfully managed to take a few far left, secular, liberal socialist poster children such as Hillary, Boxer and Pelosi and apply that dreaded image to all democrats. So now you have a situation where just about every dem is in the same box, trying to get out and reform their image. Hence, "progressive." It resonates more positively than "liberal" or "socialist" or "leftist." All of these terms have been successfully demonized. The problem with the Dems is they are constantly in a defensive position.

They're actually so-called "progressing" many of the "1963 Communist Goals" and other progressive-in-theory, but regressive-in-practice, programs, policies, and plans, while proactively attempting to undermine, and ultimately destroy, the Judeo-Christian principles, traditional morality, and family values that the vast majority of our Founding Fathers originally intended our nation to be built upon and supported by. Most regrettably, they're being too ably assisted by far too many so-called "Republicans", GWB is not doing enough to keep these "libertines" and/or "pusillanimous pantywaists" on the GOP reservation, and there aren't enough socially-conservative and freedom-spreading Democrats to balance the scales. Consequently, many of those that voted for GWB are being defacto disenfranchised, and this is the reason so many are going to sit out or vote for a 3rd party (socially-conservative, anti-illegal alien, truly free-and-fair trade-promoting, and red-ink reducing) in 2006, hoping this will motivate the GOP to wake up and smell the coffee in time for 2008. Otherwise, Clinton and Obama are going to "go moderate", while still securing the single female, fatherless family, welfare dependent and perpetual victimhood minority, union, and faux Judeo-Christian aka hypoChrist vote. While I respect and admire Romney, I'm not sure what he brings to the party as far as the Electoral College goes? He's certainly not going to change the minds of died-in-the-wool blue-staters, and I believe a more truly conservative nominee, like George Allen, would be able to more firmly secure the traditional red-states, while a running mate, like Condoleeza Rice, would serve to help cut into both the female and minority votes usually reserved for the D's. Of course, there are plenty of other options, e.g., Ken Blackwell of Ohio, a conservative black, perhaps a viable Hispanic conservative, and/or other conservative women? After seeing how GWB and the First Lady have turned their backs on us social conservatives, and doing the math, I'm not really that hopeful that we won't end up with a RINO running against Clintonobama. While I admire Rudy and Arnold's fiscal conservatism and rugged defense postures, I despise their support of abortion, homosexuality, and other insidious and deleterious attitudes and behaviors. I'm pretty sure I'd simply sit out or vote for a 3rd party candidate if either of them, or McCain, e.g., got the GOP nomination. Regretfully, I'm afraid the current political calculus might not allow a fiscally- AND socially-conservative candidate to win the presidency. It's so sad that formerly middle-of-the-road, mainstream, and moderate positions re: abortion, homosexuality, pornography, divorce, adultery, etc., are now seen by far too many to be "right-wing, religious-right, extremist, zealotry". I find it fascinating that the political spectrum and social continuum have been so radically redefined since the 1963 publication of the "Communist Goals".

Contributers

Founder"s Quote

Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity to bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war, to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"- Samuel Adams

"It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"---Patrick Henry